Varge as Plural - Shloka number and Link-Lagna Shadvargake

July 26, 2007

Dear Satya ji

I do not want to comment on anything apart from one statement.

It is not my view -Varga is the view of Mahamunis.Varga chakras -New

theory.

Drik bala and Graha drishti rule -Is not mine.I am too small.

So you may have to ask these questions to proposers of new theories.

Regds

Pradeep

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Bharat,

>

> You have provided a lot of valuable input and question in one of

your

> earlier mails. There are many unknowns in this great science and

> people like Sri KN Rao who spent their whole life to asgtrology

have

> provided theri exprience.

>

> THis single person, not competent enough in Sanskrit (since he

> expressed it earlier to Tarun), does his own way of propagation of

> thieor - which is OK as far he attributes it to his own

> interpretation. Now it has become intolerable and he says everyone

> else who does not support his methodology has to go back to

basics.

> He has no right to talk about others' basic knowledge.

>

> This is fundamental principle for any human being; let alone

> astrology. Except for a Guru to tell about his sishya (even in

this

> situation this Sishya should have invited him as Guru), no one

else

> can use that word at others. Once he uses it, then it shows his

level

> of EGO; and whatever knowledge he acquires, is of no use.

>

> We have no baisc knowledge of our own selves; how can we talk

about

> basic knowledge of others?

>

> Kind regards,

> Satya Sai Kolachina

>

> , " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

> <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Sri Satya

> >

> > I have been time and again saying that this one person is

> misquoting others.

> > He changes the meaning of their statements and uses it

incorrectly

> to show

> > as if we said a different thing. This itself is unethical and

that

> is why I

> > stopped discussing on any matters with him.

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> > On 7/26/07, Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I raise a strong objection here: You twisted the statement

avoided

> > > every other point I discussed here. This is not appropriate.

> > >

> > > Those astrologers of prior geneations, who used bhavas,

drishtis

> and

> > > amshas are not Internet astrolgoers. They never used

computers. In

> > > fact, Sri K N Rao terms those astrologers who depend 100% on

> > > computers as compudiots, in one of his articles. Internet did

not

> > > even exist in those days.

> > >

> > > PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASICS ON INTERNET. THIS IS MY

EARNEST

> AND

> > > HUMBLE WAY OF REQUESTING YOU TO HONOR OTHER ASTROLOGERS AND

THEIR

> > > APPROACH TO ASTROLOGY.

> > >

> > > TIME AN AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THIS. EVERY ASTROLOGER HAS BASIC

> > > KNOWLEDGE HERE. IT IS THE WAY THE BASICS ARE INTEREPRETED TO

THE

> > > SITUATION AND MAKING BRILLIANT PREDICTIONS.

> > > TO PROPAGATE YOUR THEORY, PUBLISH BOOKS AND SEE HOW IT GETS TO

THE

> > > PUBLIC.

> > >

> > > WHEN YOU HAVE OPEN SAID TO SRI TARUN THAT YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT

> > > ENOUGH IN SANSKRIT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT YOUR

> > > INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

> > >

> > > First read all the artiles that Sri KN Rao published and come

> back to

> > > me whether he used aspects in D charts or not. He is not a

person

> to

> > > say something to the public and do something else in his real

> > > practice. His artilces speak for him.

> > >

> > > He used mixed concetps to arrive at conclusions. Whatever

concept

> > > works in reality that is what he picked.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > > <%

> 40>,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Satya ji

> > > >

> > > > I totally agree with your view.Information technology and

> internet

> > > > Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason i

> went

> > > > back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

> > > >

> > > > Hope all members would go back to classics as you have

rightly

> > > > mentioned.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > > > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sri Bharat,

> > > > >

> > > > > I appreciate your asking openly about the level of Sanskrit

> > > > knowledge

> > > > > of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me

many

> > > > times

> > > > > and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

> > > > >

> > > > > In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that

he

> is

> > > > not

> > > > > enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is

> 100%

> > > > sure

> > > > > of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a

cryptic

> > > > > language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and

more

> you

> > > > try

> > > > > to understand.

> > > > >

> > > > > In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing

in

> his

> > > > > articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you

> unwind

> > > > it,

> > > > > the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One

> has to

> > > > > have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a

very

> > > > good

> > > > > level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > > astrologers

> > > > > to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor

of

> their

> > > > > theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all

> they

> > > > > should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > > > >

> > > > > What authority they have in their name to talk about

> astrologers

> > > > of

> > > > > the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed

their

> lives

> > > > to

> > > > > the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the

prior

> > > > > generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers

say

> > > > that " IT

> > > > > is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not

> saying

> > > > > that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the

right

> way

> > > of

> > > > > interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once

> they

> > > > say

> > > > > they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned

by

> Sri

> > > > > Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their

> interpretatino

> > > > is

> > > > > final and authoritative.

> > > > >

> > > > > When we question like this, they selectively answer our

> > > questions,

> > > > > and where they have no answers they skip and change the

topic.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > > astrologers

> > > > > to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and

> those

> > > > who

> > > > > do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to

> basics.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails

to

> say

> > > > the

> > > > > same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion

on

> the

> > > > > public forums) again and again, they can very well assist

the

> > > > people

> > > > > with their own theory and if there is value in the theory,

it

> > > > > automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

> > > > repetition.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > Satya Sai Kolachina

> > > > >

> > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

> > > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If something is your question, you should ask the

concerned

> > > > > astrologer. If

> > > > > > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do

not

> > > > accept

> > > > > it, it

> > > > > > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become

> your

> > > > > personal

> > > > > > " messengers " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as

a

> > > > separate

> > > > > chart?

> > > > > > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other

than

> > > > Rashi

> > > > > exists, is

> > > > > > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in

taking

> > > > > Karakamsha in

> > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > However, are you sure of all books that there are in

Jyotish

> > > are

> > > > > available

> > > > > > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from

when

> they

> > > > were

> > > > > written?

> > > > > > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri

Adi

> > > > Sankara

> > > > > to be

> > > > > > able to confirm that one translation is right and not the

> > > other.

> > > > > Coupled

> > > > > > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a

> > > member

> > > > > just amazes

> > > > > > me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss

charts.

> He

> > > > has

> > > > > the time

> > > > > > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read

ONE

> > > > single

> > > > > chart. Yes

> > > > > > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend

to be

> > > 100%

> > > > > > knowledgeable.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri

> Iyer's

> > > > > method were

> > > > > > non-vedic?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > > Bharat

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On 7/25/07, SPK <aquaris_rising@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Hi,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The debate may be endless but certainly not pointless.

> > > > > > > Atleast not for me. Please read how the same shloka

> > > > > > > can be interpreted with taking aspects in rashi chart.

> > > > > > > People have interpreted it to suit their own already

> > > > > > > formed ideas. I had raisded questions about why KNRao

> > > > > > > transfers karakamsha to rashi chart ? Has anyone asked

> > > > > > > him why ? The answer could be he has researched 1000

> > > > > > > horoscopes. But has anyone asked if there is any

> > > > > > > classical reference to why karakamsha has to be taken

> > > > > > > to rashi ? Has anyone asked him that question ? I ask

> > > > > > > the guys who have contact with him to ask this

> > > > > > > question.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@ <skolachi%

> 40hotmail.com>>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am trying to keep myself from this endless and

> > > > > > > > pointless debate

> > > > > > > > for a long time; but I could not resist myself from

> > > > > > > > appreciating you

> > > > > > > > bringing out this most valuable shloka and

> > > > > > > > interpretation on this

> > > > > > > > subject.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is the ultimate answer to those who do not

> > > > > > > > consider aspects in

> > > > > > > > Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara

> > > > > > > > indicates here, his

> > > > > > > > support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all

> > > > > > > > your & our

> > > > > > > > earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by

> > > > > > > > this single

> > > > > > > > shloka you provided.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even

> > > > > > > > though they keep

> > > > > > > > saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset)

> > > > > > > > can always twist

> > > > > > > > the interpretation to their convenience and try to

> > > > > > > > MAKE a FIT of the

> > > > > > > > shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however

> > > > > > > > will not stand

> > > > > > > > your opinion posted in this mail.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This in fact brings out your experience and

> > > > > > > > understanding level of

> > > > > > > > the subject.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > <%

> 40><%

> > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Krishna,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The reason for aspects being allowed within

> > > > > > > > D-charts may have to

> > > > > > > > do with

> > > > > > > > > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where

> > > > > > > > evaluation of

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30

> > > > > > > > degrees onwards

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per

> > > > > > > > table given by

> > > > > > > > Late

> > > > > > > > > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas

> > > > > > > > attributed to one

> > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class

> > > > > > > > and therefore

> > > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics

> > > > > > > > these may not be

> > > > > > > > > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat,

> > > > > > > > within 30 degrees

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > that is why I personally would look at rasi

> > > > > > > > drishti there.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the

> > > > > > > > logic behind the

> > > > > > > > > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be

> > > > > > > > considered and

> > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > up to the learned to decide whether this view is

> > > > > > > > right or not.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> > > > > > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> > > > > > > > aspects are

> > > > > > > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> > > > > > > > sure if everyone

> > > > > > > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> > > > > > > > And, I am happy

> > > > > > > > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > However, the question remains that what is the

> > > > > > > > principle behind

> > > > > > > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even

> > > > > > > > if they are a

> > > > > > > > > > restricted set.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> > > > > > > > the principle

> > > > > > > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> > > > > > > > if you could

> > > > > > > > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > > > > > > > here. However, the

> > > > > > > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> > > > > > > > the ascendant are

> > > > > > > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> > > > > > > > formed, without

> > > > > > > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> > > > > > > > half, so are the

> > > > > > > > > > > results

> > > > > > > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> > > > > > > > strength. "

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> > > > > > > > graha drishti

> > > > > > > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > > > > > > > drishtis. This is

> > > > > > > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> > > > > > > > drishti can be

> > > > > > > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > > > > > > > accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > hora

> > > > > > > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> > > > > > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> > > > > > > > forget the Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > > > > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > > > > > > you?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact

> > > > > > > > that aspects in

> > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> > > > > > > > by him, though he

> > > > > > > > > > > expresses

> > > > > > > > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic

> > > > > > > > of these

> > > > > > > > > > > aspects.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> > > > > > > > aspects in

> > > > > > > > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > > > > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the

> > > > > > > > supremacy of BPHS over

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> > > > > > > > treat one

> > > > > > > > > > > classic superior

> > > > > > > > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears

> > > > > > > > to be Pradeep's

> > > > > > > > > > > view as

> > > > > > > > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> > > > > > > > argument.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> > > > > > > > 14.I am also

> > > > > > > > > > > providing

> > > > > > > > > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read

> > > > > > > > them without any

> > > > > > > > > > > fonts.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > > > >

________

> > > > > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join

> > > > 's

> > > > > user

> > > > > > > panel and lay it on us.

> > > > > > >

http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?

> a=7

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

July 26, 2007

Dear Sri Pradeep,

No one feels here insecure nor shaky. In am only objecting your

estimating others of their basics. Please do not introduce new words

and try to divert the attention of the public here. Rather I get a

feeling that you feel insecure and are losing patience since even

after repeated telling people are not buying your views. We don't

have to buy your views; more so, when you take such an approach as I

objected.

You have over-used this word 'basics' which undermines the

capabilities and knowledge of several astrologers worldwide. So long

as you limit your words to your way of explaining your opinions,

neither I nor anyone will have objection with you. If we wish we

will debate, otherwise we don't. But do not say that 'go back to

basics' or 'learn basics', as these words explicitly undermine

others. In the past even Sri Satish also used the words 'those who

are under the muddy waters'. Even Jagadguru Adi Sankaracharya never

used such words. He is one of the greatest mahatmas India every

produced. Such words will only esclate the level of ego of the

person expressing such words, but achieve nothing. After I raised

the objection, he also stopped using such words. You may be

aggressive putting your views. But in that process, you should not

put down others' views or others' knowledge level.

In any debate, there usually two sides of the camp and there are

people on both sides. Even other pepole who supproted your views

earlier in this thread, have not used such words as you, or Satish

or even Sri Srinadh used. I never wanted to even participate when Mr

Srinadh was in this debate, after I observed the way he interacted

with Sri Chandrasekhar. It was much low-level attitude and mean

behavior about others. That is not accepted in public forums and

discussions. You have to give the same level of honor and respect to

the others' knowledge level as you expect from others.

You may consider your views as supported by Sage Parasara. But, so

long as the controversy exists and people are there in both the

camps, to the public it is still your opinion. Such controversies do

exist in astrology. Why only this topic? There are several topics

that have controversial views; that is because most astrologers are

dependent on results-oriented approach. Hence you cannot still claim

what you are trying to claim today. Why do you have difficulty to

use the words " IN MY OPINION, " or " AS MY KNOWLEDGE SUGGEST, " ? No

one will object you when you give respect to others' knowledge.

Rather your knowledge enhances or brightens, and you will win more

listeners to your opinion.

I will give an example. The other controversy is the ayanamsa. Those

who use Chitrapaksha ayanamsa, use it since they get results from

using the same. Those who use other ayanamsas like Raman's and KP's

can use them if it works for them. You can not dictate what people

should use it.

As Sri Bharat suggested, nowhere in BPHS or any other classic we are

told to use computers and Internet media to propagate. Show me a

single shloka that supports use of computers and Internet for

Jyothish. In fact, in his articles Sri KN Rao says, if we do manual

computations on astrological charts, we actually know how the

planets are interacting with each other even at D-charts level also.

Since you are a true believer of classical approach using Shlokas, I

DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO USE INTERNET AND COMPUTERS FOR THE CAUSE OF

ASTROLOGY. Of course, I have no right to tell you to use or not use

something. Using your own approach this is what I have to say, since

there is no classical text that supports (unless you or your

supporters invent one).

The gist of my message is, say whatever you want to say, but as your

opinion only. Do not undermine the knowledge of others.

Best regards,

Satya S Kolachina

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Satya ji

>

> I have also mentioned numerous times that,if Raoji feels it is

> giving him results ,i cannot object.Even if Raoji does not use

these

> extra info he would get the results is my PERSONAL opinion.

>

> Now the question is about fundamentals.Whether Raoji has

understood

> or not is beyond my abilities.

>

> I go by Tarka and Pramana.If anybody wants to clarify they can

take

> the relevant shloka.If any body can translate the shloka for

aspects

> in a different way let them do it.Pls do not say the shloka that

> defines aspect is not clear.

>

> If you have different translation pls provide.I am not prepared to

> debate on your personal views or ''it works for

me /him ''etc.Tarka

> and Pramana like the way -Chandrashekar ji does -i am there.Else

why

> do we debate?

>

> Let us be cool.The debate is only for those want to take a relook

at

> basics.I cannot understand the insecure feeling.Why are we shaky

> here.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> >

> > I raise a strong objection here: You twisted the statement

avoided

> > every other point I discussed here. This is not appropriate.

> >

> > Those astrologers of prior geneations, who used bhavas, drishtis

> and

> > amshas are not Internet astrolgoers. They never used computers.

In

> > fact, Sri K N Rao terms those astrologers who depend 100% on

> > computers as compudiots, in one of his articles. Internet did

not

> > even exist in those days.

> >

> > PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASICS ON INTERNET. THIS IS MY EARNEST

> AND

> > HUMBLE WAY OF REQUESTING YOU TO HONOR OTHER ASTROLOGERS AND

THEIR

> > APPROACH TO ASTROLOGY.

> >

> > TIME AN AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THIS. EVERY ASTROLOGER HAS BASIC

> > KNOWLEDGE HERE. IT IS THE WAY THE BASICS ARE INTEREPRETED TO THE

> > SITUATION AND MAKING BRILLIANT PREDICTIONS.

> > TO PROPAGATE YOUR THEORY, PUBLISH BOOKS AND SEE HOW IT GETS TO

THE

> > PUBLIC.

> >

> > WHEN YOU HAVE OPEN SAID TO SRI TARUN THAT YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT

> > ENOUGH IN SANSKRIT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT YOUR

> > INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

> >

> > First read all the artiles that Sri KN Rao published and come

back

> to

> > me whether he used aspects in D charts or not. He is not a

person

> to

> > say something to the public and do something else in his real

> > practice. His artilces speak for him.

> >

> > He used mixed concetps to arrive at conclusions. Whatever

concept

> > works in reality that is what he picked.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Satya ji

> > >

> > > I totally agree with your view.Information technology and

> internet

> > > Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason i

> went

> > > back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

> > >

> > > Hope all members would go back to classics as you have rightly

> > > mentioned.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sri Bharat,

> > > >

> > > > I appreciate your asking openly about the level of Sanskrit

> > > knowledge

> > > > of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me

many

> > > times

> > > > and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

> > > >

> > > > In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that

he

> is

> > > not

> > > > enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is

> 100%

> > > sure

> > > > of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a

cryptic

> > > > language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and more

> you

> > > try

> > > > to understand.

> > > >

> > > > In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing in

> his

> > > > articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you

> unwind

> > > it,

> > > > the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One

has

> to

> > > > have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a

very

> > > good

> > > > level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

> > > >

> > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > astrologers

> > > > to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor of

> their

> > > > theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all

> they

> > > > should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > > >

> > > > What authority they have in their name to talk about

> astrologers

> > > of

> > > > the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed their

> lives

> > > to

> > > > the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the prior

> > > > generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

> > > >

> > > > I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers say

> > > that " IT

> > > > is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not

> saying

> > > > that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the right

> way

> > of

> > > > interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once

> they

> > > say

> > > > they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned

by

> Sri

> > > > Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their

> interpretatino

> > > is

> > > > final and authoritative.

> > > >

> > > > When we question like this, they selectively answer our

> > questions,

> > > > and where they have no answers they skip and change the

topic.

> > > >

> > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > astrologers

> > > > to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and

> those

> > > who

> > > > do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to

basics.

> > > >

> > > > As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails to

> say

> > > the

> > > > same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion on

> the

> > > > public forums) again and again, they can very well assist

the

> > > people

> > > > with their own theory and if there is value in the theory,

it

> > > > automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

> > > repetition.

> > > >

> > > > Best regards,

> > > > Satya Sai Kolachina

> > > >

> > > > , " Bharat - Hindu

> Astrology "

> > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> > > > >

> > > > > If something is your question, you should ask the

concerned

> > > > astrologer. If

> > > > > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do

not

> > > accept

> > > > it, it

> > > > > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become

> your

> > > > personal

> > > > > " messengers " .

> > > > >

> > > > > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as a

> > > separate

> > > > chart?

> > > > > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other

than

> > > Rashi

> > > > exists, is

> > > > > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in taking

> > > > Karakamsha in

> > > > > Rashi.

> > > > >

> > > > > However, are you sure of all books that there are in

Jyotish

> > are

> > > > available

> > > > > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from when

> they

> > > were

> > > > written?

> > > > > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri

Adi

> > > Sankara

> > > > to be

> > > > > able to confirm that one translation is right and not the

> > other.

> > > > Coupled

> > > > > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by a

> > member

> > > > just amazes

> > > > > me.

> > > > >

> > > > > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss charts.

> He

> > > has

> > > > the time

> > > > > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read ONE

> > > single

> > > > chart. Yes

> > > > > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend to

be

> > 100%

> > > > > knowledgeable.

> > > > >

> > > > > And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri

> Iyer's

> > > > method were

> > > > > non-vedic?

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > Bharat

> > > > >

> > > > > On 7/25/07, SPK <aquaris_rising@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hi,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The debate may be endless but certainly not pointless.

> > > > > > Atleast not for me. Please read how the same shloka

> > > > > > can be interpreted with taking aspects in rashi chart.

> > > > > > People have interpreted it to suit their own already

> > > > > > formed ideas. I had raisded questions about why KNRao

> > > > > > transfers karakamsha to rashi chart ? Has anyone asked

> > > > > > him why ? The answer could be he has researched 1000

> > > > > > horoscopes. But has anyone asked if there is any

> > > > > > classical reference to why karakamsha has to be taken

> > > > > > to rashi ? Has anyone asked him that question ? I ask

> > > > > > the guys who have contact with him to ask this

> > > > > > question.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@ <skolachi%

> 40hotmail.com>>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am trying to keep myself from this endless and

> > > > > > > pointless debate

> > > > > > > for a long time; but I could not resist myself from

> > > > > > > appreciating you

> > > > > > > bringing out this most valuable shloka and

> > > > > > > interpretation on this

> > > > > > > subject.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is the ultimate answer to those who do not

> > > > > > > consider aspects in

> > > > > > > Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara

> > > > > > > indicates here, his

> > > > > > > support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all

> > > > > > > your & our

> > > > > > > earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by

> > > > > > > this single

> > > > > > > shloka you provided.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even

> > > > > > > though they keep

> > > > > > > saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset)

> > > > > > > can always twist

> > > > > > > the interpretation to their convenience and try to

> > > > > > > MAKE a FIT of the

> > > > > > > shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however

> > > > > > > will not stand

> > > > > > > your opinion posted in this mail.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This in fact brings out your experience and

> > > > > > > understanding level of

> > > > > > > the subject.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Krishna,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The reason for aspects being allowed within

> > > > > > > D-charts may have to

> > > > > > > do with

> > > > > > > > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where

> > > > > > > evaluation of

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30

> > > > > > > degrees onwards

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per

> > > > > > > table given by

> > > > > > > Late

> > > > > > > > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas

> > > > > > > attributed to one

> > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class

> > > > > > > and therefore

> > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics

> > > > > > > these may not be

> > > > > > > > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat,

> > > > > > > within 30 degrees

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > that is why I personally would look at rasi

> > > > > > > drishti there.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the

> > > > > > > logic behind the

> > > > > > > > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be

> > > > > > > considered and

> > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > up to the learned to decide whether this view is

> > > > > > > right or not.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> > > > > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> > > > > > > aspects are

> > > > > > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> > > > > > > sure if everyone

> > > > > > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> > > > > > > And, I am happy

> > > > > > > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > However, the question remains that what is the

> > > > > > > principle behind

> > > > > > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even

> > > > > > > if they are a

> > > > > > > > > restricted set.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> > > > > > > the principle

> > > > > > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> > > > > > > if you could

> > > > > > > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > > > > > > here. However, the

> > > > > > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> > > > > > > the ascendant are

> > > > > > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> > > > > > > formed, without

> > > > > > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> > > > > > > half, so are the

> > > > > > > > > > results

> > > > > > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> > > > > > > strength. "

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> > > > > > > graha drishti

> > > > > > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > > > > > > drishtis. This is

> > > > > > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> > > > > > > drishti can be

> > > > > > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > > > > > > accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > > > > > > > hora

> > > > > > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> > > > > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> > > > > > > forget the Hora

> > > > > > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > > > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > > > > > you?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact

> > > > > > > that aspects in

> > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> > > > > > > by him, though he

> > > > > > > > > > expresses

> > > > > > > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic

> > > > > > > of these

> > > > > > > > > > aspects.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> > > > > > > aspects in

> > > > > > > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > > > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the

> > > > > > > supremacy of BPHS over

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> > > > > > > treat one

> > > > > > > > > > classic superior

> > > > > > > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears

> > > > > > > to be Pradeep's

> > > > > > > > > > view as

> > > > > > > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> > > > > > > argument.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> > > > > > > 14.I am also

> > > > > > > > > > providing

> > > > > > > > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read

> > > > > > > them without any

> > > > > > > > > > fonts.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > > >

________

> > > > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join

> > > 's

> > > > user

> > > > > > panel and lay it on us.

> > > > > > http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?

a=7

> > > > > >

> > > > >

July 26, 2007

Dear Sri Bharath,

I agree with you. I find losing interest in these debates; as every

one propagate theories. There is a significant difference between

propagating theories and just sharing their opinions. These days

most people are resorting to propagate their theories, even though

people are not interested.

Best regards,

Satya Sai Kolachina

, " Bharat - Hindu Astrology "

<astrologyhindu wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Satya

>

> Now you can very imagine that this isn't Jyotish. The very fact

that the

> person believes himself to be quoting Maharishis (not knowing if

they were

> from the state of the current texts), and believes all else is

imaginations

> of currents Masters of Astrology, it is clear that the agenda is

to prove a

> group wrong and themselves right.

>

> We as individuals are caught in this crossfire of two groups. I

think you

> can very well imagine the groups I am talking about. The timing

is " right "

> for this group since the other group is busy in some other

activity.

> Moreover, Jyotishgroup is not moderated by them.

>

> After so long, this looks like a plausible explanation to me in

garb of

> traditionalism. I do not know what happened to Traditionalism when

in

> earlier discussions, the person tried to change the meaning of

Vedanta and

> Bhagvad Geeta. As people are free to take out their meaning of

traditional,

> I guess that gives me the right to call them psuedo

traditionalists with no

> clue about our grand Tradition and using it to win personal

battles and

> egoistic tussles.

>

> I did not know, keeping an open mind was that difficult. Frankly,

I do not

> have time to suffer their mails and I will make good use " Report

Spam "

> Filter.

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

On 7/26/07, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satish ji

> >

> > As i have expected we have to face stiff opposition.This is just

a

> > beggining.What more can we provide.

> >

> > I would not be surprised if some one says,i cannot read/write

> > english.

> >

> > When we are debating within the rules -what is the opposition

camp

> > doing -

> >

> > This person misquotes

> > He has been given shastric quotes

> > He is like this

> > He has closed mind

> > He provides no charts

> > It works for me

> > I lovee the joke

> >

> > For making these comments do we have to know astrology?

> >

> > Are we serious.If yes,tell us what point regarding Graha drishti

is

> > not clear.Which has been misinterpreted.Do you have any other

> > translation from anyone else regarding drishti or drik bala?

> >

> > If not you may kindly listen and see how Chandrashekhar ji is

> > debating.

> >

> > Any one can raise allegations.

> >

> > Kindly understand

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > There <%

40>,

> > SPK <aquaris_rising@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Sir,

> > >

> > > Have you read the example put up by Vijaydas ? The

> > > interpretation of the shloka as provided by

> > > Chadrashekharji is shown to work in rashi chart with

> > > aspects in rashi chart alone on the lagna amshas.

> > >

> > > People clamoring for examples have their wish and

> > > Vijaydas has put up two examples so far plus a thought

> > > provoking article by Mr. Bose. Whether vijaydas knows

> > > sanskrit or not is a MOOT point as he has given

> > > example based on the english translation. I am sure

> > > you will agree that Vijasdas knows english.

> > >

> > > Satish

> > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Sri Bharat,

> > > >

> > > > You have provided a lot of valuable input and

> > > > question in one of your

> > > > earlier mails. There are many unknowns in this great

> > > > science and

> > > > people like Sri KN Rao who spent their whole life to

> > > > asgtrology have

> > > > provided theri exprience.

> > > >

> > > > THis single person, not competent enough in Sanskrit

> > > > (since he

> > > > expressed it earlier to Tarun), does his own way of

> > > > propagation of

> > > > thieor - which is OK as far he attributes it to his

> > > > own

> > > > interpretation. Now it has become intolerable and he

> > > > says everyone

> > > > else who does not support his methodology has to go

> > > > back to basics.

> > > > He has no right to talk about others' basic

> > > > knowledge.

> > > >

> > > > This is fundamental principle for any human being;

> > > > let alone

> > > > astrology. Except for a Guru to tell about his

> > > > sishya (even in this

> > > > situation this Sishya should have invited him as

> > > > Guru), no one else

> > > > can use that word at others. Once he uses it, then

> > > > it shows his level

> > > > of EGO; and whatever knowledge he acquires, is of no

> > > > use.

> > > >

> > > > We have no baisc knowledge of our own selves; how

> > > > can we talk about

> > > > basic knowledge of others?

> > > >

> > > > Kind regards,

> > > > Satya Sai Kolachina

> > > >

> > >

> > ________

> > _______________

> > > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life,

your

> > story. Play Sims Stories at Games.

> > > http://sims./

> > >

> >

>

July 26, 2007

Dear Satya ji

I apologize if i was not clear about Internet.One of the byproducts

of internet technology was institutionalisation of Varga Chakras.

On the other hand,i would like to say that Internet has helped a lot

in gainiing knowledge as well to interact with many great souls.

I have no disrespect and if it was felt,pls accept my apologies.

Regds

Pradeep

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Pradeep,

>

> No one feels here insecure nor shaky. In am only objecting your

> estimating others of their basics. Please do not introduce new

words

> and try to divert the attention of the public here. Rather I get a

> feeling that you feel insecure and are losing patience since even

> after repeated telling people are not buying your views. We don't

> have to buy your views; more so, when you take such an approach as

I

> objected.

>

> You have over-used this word 'basics' which undermines the

> capabilities and knowledge of several astrologers worldwide. So

long

> as you limit your words to your way of explaining your opinions,

> neither I nor anyone will have objection with you. If we wish we

> will debate, otherwise we don't. But do not say that 'go back to

> basics' or 'learn basics', as these words explicitly undermine

> others. In the past even Sri Satish also used the words 'those who

> are under the muddy waters'. Even Jagadguru Adi Sankaracharya

never

> used such words. He is one of the greatest mahatmas India every

> produced. Such words will only esclate the level of ego of the

> person expressing such words, but achieve nothing. After I raised

> the objection, he also stopped using such words. You may be

> aggressive putting your views. But in that process, you should not

> put down others' views or others' knowledge level.

>

> In any debate, there usually two sides of the camp and there are

> people on both sides. Even other pepole who supproted your views

> earlier in this thread, have not used such words as you, or Satish

> or even Sri Srinadh used. I never wanted to even participate when

Mr

> Srinadh was in this debate, after I observed the way he interacted

> with Sri Chandrasekhar. It was much low-level attitude and mean

> behavior about others. That is not accepted in public forums and

> discussions. You have to give the same level of honor and respect

to

> the others' knowledge level as you expect from others.

>

> You may consider your views as supported by Sage Parasara. But, so

> long as the controversy exists and people are there in both the

> camps, to the public it is still your opinion. Such controversies

do

> exist in astrology. Why only this topic? There are several topics

> that have controversial views; that is because most astrologers

are

> dependent on results-oriented approach. Hence you cannot still

claim

> what you are trying to claim today. Why do you have difficulty to

> use the words " IN MY OPINION, " or " AS MY KNOWLEDGE SUGGEST, " ? No

> one will object you when you give respect to others' knowledge.

> Rather your knowledge enhances or brightens, and you will win more

> listeners to your opinion.

>

> I will give an example. The other controversy is the ayanamsa.

Those

> who use Chitrapaksha ayanamsa, use it since they get results from

> using the same. Those who use other ayanamsas like Raman's and

KP's

> can use them if it works for them. You can not dictate what people

> should use it.

>

> As Sri Bharat suggested, nowhere in BPHS or any other classic we

are

> told to use computers and Internet media to propagate. Show me a

> single shloka that supports use of computers and Internet for

> Jyothish. In fact, in his articles Sri KN Rao says, if we do

manual

> computations on astrological charts, we actually know how the

> planets are interacting with each other even at D-charts level

also.

>

> Since you are a true believer of classical approach using Shlokas,

I

> DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO USE INTERNET AND COMPUTERS FOR THE CAUSE OF

> ASTROLOGY. Of course, I have no right to tell you to use or not

use

> something. Using your own approach this is what I have to say,

since

> there is no classical text that supports (unless you or your

> supporters invent one).

>

> The gist of my message is, say whatever you want to say, but as

your

> opinion only. Do not undermine the knowledge of others.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satya ji

> >

> > I have also mentioned numerous times that,if Raoji feels it is

> > giving him results ,i cannot object.Even if Raoji does not use

> these

> > extra info he would get the results is my PERSONAL opinion.

> >

> > Now the question is about fundamentals.Whether Raoji has

> understood

> > or not is beyond my abilities.

> >

> > I go by Tarka and Pramana.If anybody wants to clarify they can

> take

> > the relevant shloka.If any body can translate the shloka for

> aspects

> > in a different way let them do it.Pls do not say the shloka

that

> > defines aspect is not clear.

> >

> > If you have different translation pls provide.I am not prepared

to

> > debate on your personal views or ''it works for

> me /him ''etc.Tarka

> > and Pramana like the way -Chandrashekar ji does -i am there.Else

> why

> > do we debate?

> >

> > Let us be cool.The debate is only for those want to take a

relook

> at

> > basics.I cannot understand the insecure feeling.Why are we shaky

> > here.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I raise a strong objection here: You twisted the statement

> avoided

> > > every other point I discussed here. This is not appropriate.

> > >

> > > Those astrologers of prior geneations, who used bhavas,

drishtis

> > and

> > > amshas are not Internet astrolgoers. They never used

computers.

> In

> > > fact, Sri K N Rao terms those astrologers who depend 100% on

> > > computers as compudiots, in one of his articles. Internet did

> not

> > > even exist in those days.

> > >

> > > PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASICS ON INTERNET. THIS IS MY

EARNEST

> > AND

> > > HUMBLE WAY OF REQUESTING YOU TO HONOR OTHER ASTROLOGERS AND

> THEIR

> > > APPROACH TO ASTROLOGY.

> > >

> > > TIME AN AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THIS. EVERY ASTROLOGER HAS BASIC

> > > KNOWLEDGE HERE. IT IS THE WAY THE BASICS ARE INTEREPRETED TO

THE

> > > SITUATION AND MAKING BRILLIANT PREDICTIONS.

> > > TO PROPAGATE YOUR THEORY, PUBLISH BOOKS AND SEE HOW IT GETS TO

> THE

> > > PUBLIC.

> > >

> > > WHEN YOU HAVE OPEN SAID TO SRI TARUN THAT YOU ARE NOT

COMPETENT

> > > ENOUGH IN SANSKRIT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT YOUR

> > > INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

> > >

> > > First read all the artiles that Sri KN Rao published and come

> back

> > to

> > > me whether he used aspects in D charts or not. He is not a

> person

> > to

> > > say something to the public and do something else in his real

> > > practice. His artilces speak for him.

> > >

> > > He used mixed concetps to arrive at conclusions. Whatever

> concept

> > > works in reality that is what he picked.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Satya ji

> > > >

> > > > I totally agree with your view.Information technology and

> > internet

> > > > Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason i

> > went

> > > > back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

> > > >

> > > > Hope all members would go back to classics as you have

rightly

> > > > mentioned.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > > > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sri Bharat,

> > > > >

> > > > > I appreciate your asking openly about the level of

Sanskrit

> > > > knowledge

> > > > > of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me

> many

> > > > times

> > > > > and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

> > > > >

> > > > > In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that

> he

> > is

> > > > not

> > > > > enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is

> > 100%

> > > > sure

> > > > > of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a

> cryptic

> > > > > language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and

more

> > you

> > > > try

> > > > > to understand.

> > > > >

> > > > > In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing

in

> > his

> > > > > articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you

> > unwind

> > > > it,

> > > > > the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One

> has

> > to

> > > > > have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a

> very

> > > > good

> > > > > level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > > astrologers

> > > > > to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor

of

> > their

> > > > > theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all

> > they

> > > > > should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > > > >

> > > > > What authority they have in their name to talk about

> > astrologers

> > > > of

> > > > > the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed

their

> > lives

> > > > to

> > > > > the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the

prior

> > > > > generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers

say

> > > > that " IT

> > > > > is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not

> > saying

> > > > > that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the

right

> > way

> > > of

> > > > > interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once

> > they

> > > > say

> > > > > they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned

> by

> > Sri

> > > > > Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their

> > interpretatino

> > > > is

> > > > > final and authoritative.

> > > > >

> > > > > When we question like this, they selectively answer our

> > > questions,

> > > > > and where they have no answers they skip and change the

> topic.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > > astrologers

> > > > > to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and

> > those

> > > > who

> > > > > do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to

> basics.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails

to

> > say

> > > > the

> > > > > same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion

on

> > the

> > > > > public forums) again and again, they can very well assist

> the

> > > > people

> > > > > with their own theory and if there is value in the theory,

> it

> > > > > automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

> > > > repetition.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > Satya Sai Kolachina

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Bharat - Hindu

> > Astrology "

> > > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If something is your question, you should ask the

> concerned

> > > > > astrologer. If

> > > > > > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do

> not

> > > > accept

> > > > > it, it

> > > > > > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become

> > your

> > > > > personal

> > > > > > " messengers " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as

a

> > > > separate

> > > > > chart?

> > > > > > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other

> than

> > > > Rashi

> > > > > exists, is

> > > > > > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in

taking

> > > > > Karakamsha in

> > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > However, are you sure of all books that there are in

> Jyotish

> > > are

> > > > > available

> > > > > > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from

when

> > they

> > > > were

> > > > > written?

> > > > > > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri

> Adi

> > > > Sankara

> > > > > to be

> > > > > > able to confirm that one translation is right and not

the

> > > other.

> > > > > Coupled

> > > > > > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by

a

> > > member

> > > > > just amazes

> > > > > > me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss

charts.

> > He

> > > > has

> > > > > the time

> > > > > > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read

ONE

> > > > single

> > > > > chart. Yes

> > > > > > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend

to

> be

> > > 100%

> > > > > > knowledgeable.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri

> > Iyer's